FOR the first time
within living memory, it was now necessary to find a new Rabbi. The
choice of the community fell upon Zevi Hirsch, son of Aryeh Leib, the
recently-deceased Rabbi of Amsterdam. Here, presumably, members of
the London community had been favourably impressed by his son's
ability, and when the vacancy was declared early in 1758 negotiations
with him were at once begun. Though he was now in his thirty-seventh
year (he had been born at Rzeszów in Poland in 1721 and for
the last few years had studied at Glogau, of which community his
father-in-law was a leading member) this was his first incumbency. In
London his name was anglicised to Hart Lyon, though on the Continent
he was known as Hirsch Loebel or Hirschel Lewin - the same appellation
in a slightly different form. His salary was £250 per annum,
£80 more than his predecessor had received - an income which for
those days, when a village parson "was passing rich on forty pounds a
year", was quite considerable. (Of this amount £100 was
contributed by the Hambro' Synagogue, with which a reconciliation had
been effected in 1750, as will be seen later on.) Moreover, whereas
his predecessor had the right to be summoned to the reading of the
Law only on those special occasions when he preached, Hart Lyon was
to be "called up" every Sabbath. Of the early Rabbis of the Great
Synagogue, Hart Lyon was probably the most learned in Talmudic lore
and played the most significant part in the affairs of the Jewish
world generally: a fact which was responsible for the eager
competition for his services, the comparatively short duration of his
pastorate, and the fact that he is the only Rabbi of the Great
Synagogue, from Aaron Hart onwards, who did not die in office. From
1772 he was Chief Rabbi of Berlin, where he was on terms of great
intimacy with Moses Mendelssohn (itself testimony to his character
and erudition), collaborated with him in preparing a German
résumé of Jewish civil law, and played an important
part in the disputes which marked the beginning of the Haskalah
movement. Evidence of the high regard that he enjoyed in literary
circles even during the period of his Rabbinate in England is given
by the fact that he contributed an approbation to the work Shoneh
Halakhoth by Haham Solomon Salom, published at Amsterdam in 1762. But
it was perhaps his learned ancestry as much as his attainments that
determined the London community to give him the appointment. As we
have seen, his father, Aryeh Leib, was Rabbi of Amsterdam, where he
died in 1755. (Out of compliment to the son, his name was included in
the commemoration list of the Great Synagogue, where it is still
recited, somewhat confusingly, among the roll of the Chief Rabbis of
London.) His mother, moreover, was a daughter of Haham Zevi, that
great scholar who had been consulted during the disputes in the
infancy of the congregation, and whose family continued to play its
part in the affairs of the London community for almost a century and
a half.

Until he acquired
the dignity of age, Hart Lyon does not seem to have had a very
impressive appearance. Not long after his arrival in England, his
portrait was painted in oils by I. Turner, a poor but fashionable
artist of the time (the original now hangs in the vestry-room of the
Great Synagogue), being subsequently engraved by Edward Fisher, with
the lettering: "The most learned High Priest HART LYON, Rabbi. London
Printed for Robt. Withy at the Dunciad in Cornhill. Price 2s. 6d."
But it is impossible for even the most enthusiastic admirer to
maintain that the face is either handsome or venerable, or that the
new Rabbi could compete even remotely in looks - whatever might be the
case with his mental capacity - with his immediate
predecessor.

A number of sermons
delivered by Rabbi Hart Lyon during his period of office are
extant--somewhat heavy fare, generally beginning with a Talmudical
discourse that must have lasted for about an hour and a half, which
formed the prelude to a homily of approximately equal length.1
Several were preached on the occasion of the services of intercession
that were held from time to time at the royal command during the
Seven Years War. They throw some light on social and religious
conditions in the London community, of which the Rabbi, as in duty
bound, heartily disapproved. There was, to his great regret, no
proper scholastic institution for the study of the Talmud, and men
criticised him when he attended service in the Beth haMidrash he had
set up in his own house instead of going to Synagogue. England was
abundantly supplied with travelling preachers (Maggidim) from the
Continent (the regulations of the community minutely prescribed the
conditions under which they might occupy the pulpit, and in the
accounts there are periodically noted gratuities to foreign
scholars). Notwithstanding their efforts, the standard of religious
observance was not conspicuously high. Jews congregated outside the
post office on Sabbath mornings to receive their mail, and asked
Gentiles to open it for them; they carried burdens on the day of rest
outside the City boundaries, had tea and coffee prepared by their
non-Jewish servants, dressed on public holidays better than they did
on the Jewish festivals and dutifully ate Christmas pudding when
their Christian neighbours indulged in that fare. Socially, they were
assimilated to their environment, playing cards at the coffee-houses
when the Rabbi would have preferred them to be studying, and
frequenting the theatres with more zest than they did the
institutions of Jewish learning; while the women dressed their hair
like their neighbours and wore gowns with what he considered a
shocking décolletage. Even mixed marriages were by no means
unknown. Synagogue attendance was lax, and decorum far from perfect
(everything, in fact, that is deplored today). But all the Rabbi's
attempts to remedy matters were useless. "Heaven knows how weary I am
of my life here," he cried in a pulpit address in the summer of 1762.
"I cannot bear witnessing any longer all you do in public and in
private." (There was obviously one mental reservation to this
sweeping statement: in November 1760, he had been granted £25 on
the occasion of his daughter's betrothal.)

Antique
Ritual Silver

The internal history
of the community during this period was of considerable importance.
It seems that Rabbi Hart Lyon attempted to make good one of the
communal shortcomings which he had criticised by setting up a
Yeshiba, in the continental style, where young men might immerse
themselves under his direction in Talmudical study: but the
institution only lasted for a very short time, and the experiment
ended in failure. Shechita provided another perennial problem. There
was at that time in London a pious Levantine Jew named Jacob Kimchi,
who spent his time, in the intervals of selling slippers near the
Royal Exchange, in writing Hebrew books and criticising the
constituted authorities. One of his preoccupations was the question
of the ritual slaughter of animals for food, which he alleged to be
carried on under the auspices of the Spanish and Portuguese community
in a manner at variance with Rabbinic prescriptions. When Hart Lyon
arrived to assume the Rabbinate of the Ashkenazi community, Kimchi
waited upon him and expounded his point of view. The Rabbi promised
to consider the matter and to set down his views in writing. But he
reckoned without his Parnassim, who, not wishing to cause any
ill-blood between the two communities, forbade him enter into the
controversy: a fact of which Kimchi did not fail to make as much
capital as possible in the pamphlets which he published to air his
opinions.

Hart Lyon's
Rabbinate was marked by one development of the utmost importance in
Anglo-Jewry, in which the Great Synagogue was very intimately
concerned. In the autumn of 1760 old George II, who had shown himself
so sympathetic when the Jewish representatives had told him about the
sufferings of their brethren in Prague, passed peacefully away. He
was succeeded by his young grandson, George III. It had been the
practice of the Spanish and Portuguese community to elect from time
to time a small committee of "Deputies", to represent it in political
matters which might affect its interests and to wait upon the
officers of state on its behalf when necessary. This was done as a
matter course on the death of the old King, when a sub-committee of
the Deputados went to see the Prime Minister, requesting him to
assure the new ruler of their loyalty and to convey him their humble
congratulations.

The Wardens of the
Duke's Place Synagogue that year were Aaron Franks and Lazarus Simon:
the "Five Men" who constituted the Board of Management were Simon
Jacobus Moses, Aaron Levy, Jacob Nathan Moses, David Salamons (Bloch)
and Aaron Goldsmid. When the news of what had happened reached these
worthies they were furious. It was upwards of thirty years since a
new ruler had come to the throne in England. Since that time, their
community had grown in numbers and wealth, and it was preposterous at
this stage for the magnates of Bevis Marks to pretend to speak in the
name of the entire body of Anglo-Jewry, leaving them in the cold. On
Sunday, December 7th, accordingly, Aaron Franks went to Bevis Marks
to register a formal complaint in the name of his colleagues. A
special meeting of the Deputados was thereupon called, and not only
Mr. Franks, but also Mr. Levy Salomons of the Hambro' Synagogue
(great-grandfather of Sir David Salomons, first Jewish Lord Mayor of
London) was asked to attend. It was pointed out to them that what had
been done was according to precedent, but that, as the deputation had
spoken in the name of the Portuguese Jewish "nation" only, it was
open to the other section of the community to take similar action if
they desired. If, on the other hand, they desired to join in
presenting a loyal address to the new King's mother and the royal
family, their collaboration would be welcomed. While agreeing to
this, the visitors suggested that in future, in order to avoid
similar confusion, "each Nation should communicate to the other what
they were doing in public affairs". This proposal presented an
obvious difficulty, which the Portuguese representatives were quick
to point out: the Ashkenazi communities had no specific organisation
with which to communicate when necessary. The difficulty was easily
met, the latter deciding to nominate a Committee similar to that of
the senior body. The agreement was sealed, and on December 11th Mr.
Franks accompanied Mr. Salvador to the Palace and kissed hands with
the Princess, the Duke of York, and the Princess Augusta on tendering
the humble devotion of his own community.

The following week
(December 14th), the two Ashkenazi communities nominated their
representatives. Those of the Great Synagogue consisted of three
members of the inevitable Franks family - Aaron, Naphtali and
Moses--together with their relative Michael Adolphus. (This same
group, with Lazarus Simon in the place of Moses Franks, had
previously acted as the Committee to carry on negotiations.) On the
receipt of these names, the Portuguese Deputies passed the following
resolution:

Decr 14th,
1760.

Resolved that
whenever any publick affair should offer that may Interest the Two
Nations we will on our parts Communicate to the Committee of the
Dutch Jews Synagogues what we may think proper should be done, and
that we desire the said Gentlemen may do the same and make a
minute thereof.

This was the origin
of the London Committee of Deputies of British Jews, generally known
as the Board of Deputies, which was to become in the course of the
nineteenth century a representative body embracing the entire
country, and in certain aspects even the entire Empire, and to be a
powerful force for good in Jewish life generally throughout the
world.

Minute
relating to Foundation of the Board of Deputies, 1761 (from the
earliest Takkanah Book)

In the first
generation or so of its existence, indeed, its activity was only
sporadic. It started off with the best of intentions, and within a
very short time of the original arrangement two representatives of
the "Dutch" Jews were summoned to confer with those of the Portuguese
regarding the action to be taken in connexion with a proposed
revision in the form of the Oath of Allegiance. Very wisely, it was
decided to do nothing. Thereafter, the Committee lapsed into
inactivity, the Portuguese refraining from troubling their colleagues
on those few occasions when they took action on behalf of their
Sephardi coreligionists elsewhere in the Empire. It was not until
1789, when the King recovered from his first illness, that Deputies
from the Ashkenazi communities were again invited to co-operate in
the presentation of a loyal address.

Meanwhile, the
congregation in Duke's Place had continued to grow. All the
communities in Germany were sending their youth to the land of
toleration and of opportunity, where so many of their kinsmen had
prospered. At the beginning of the century it is doubtful whether the
total number of Jews in England approached 1000: by the time of Hart
Lyon's rabbinate they had touched six times that number, and the
majority were now Ashkenazim. The synagogal accommodation, on the
other, had increased but slowly. Only one important development is to
be recorded. In 1731 Marcus Moses, founder of the Hambro' Synagogue,
had returned from India after a ten-year absence, in which he had
recuperated his fortunes handsomely: among his trophies being a
superb diamond whose equal had never before been seen in Europe.2 The
returned nabob's associates profited from his good-fortune--all the
more, perhaps, since he had disinherited his disreputable apostate
son, Moses Marcus, who had brought disgrace upon the entire family
not only by his actions but also by his publications. During the
magnate's absence, services had continued to be held in the synagogue
which he had set up in his house; indeed, reunion with the parent
community was impossible, since the Ban pronounced in 1706 still
stood upon its records. But the seceding body had by now grown,
another plutocrat connected by marriage with the founder, Benjamin
Isaac (alternatively known as Wolf Prager and Zeeb Wolf ben Isaac), a
native of Jungbunzlau, in Bohemia, having begun to take an interest
in it. It was now determined to follow the example of the older body
and replace the extemporised place of worship by a proper synagogue.
This was accordingly constructed in 1725, in the garden of the house
in Magpie Alley, Fenchurch Street, to which Moses now removed, the
foundation stone being laid by Benjamin Isaac three days before
Pentecost, and the Synagogue opened some time in the New Year. (It is
said to have been modelled architecturally on the "Hamburger Schul"
on the Neuer Steinweg in Hamburg.) It must have been a small, but
wealthy body, as indeed it remained to the end in relation to the
other London communities. The synagogal paraphernalia--the silver,
the brocades, the candelabra--were all of the finest, and did credit
to the good taste of the little group of gem-merchants who controlled
its destinies. Down the end of the nineteenth century the synagogue
remained on its original site, where Fenchurch Street Buildings now
stand. (In 1893-9, it was removed to Adler Street, Commercial Road,
where it stayed until in 1936 the congregation re-amalgamated, after
230 years, with the Great Synagogue.)

Shofar,
eighteenth century

As on a previous
occasion, twenty-one years before, the jealous parent-community,
backed by the parishioners of the neighbouring church of St.
Katherine Coleman, made vigorous representations to the City
authorities - not ineffectually, as the following extremely
informative documents from the Guildhall archives, hitherto
unpublished, vividly shows:

To the
Right Honble the Lord Mayor and the Worshipful the Court of
Aldermen

The Humble
Petition of Moses Hart on behalf of himself and the rest of the
Members of the Synagogue of German Jews in London.

HUMBLY
SHEWETH

That the
Congregation of German Jews in London have always congregated
themselves together in their Synagogue in Shoemaker Row which is
built on Lands belonging to this Honble City and is the only
Synagogue for their Worship in London.

That in the Year
1704 Mr. Abraham Nathan and Mr. Marcus Moses separated themselves
from the said Synagogue with an intent to Erect another Synagogue
in St. Mary Ax which they were actually doing when upon complaint
made to this Honble Court and after hearing all Partyes this Court
did Order A Stop to be put to the Erecting the Same and the said
Mr. Nathan and Mr. Moses in obedience thereto again joined
themselves and became Members of the said Synagogue and for
preventing any Separation for the future by writing by them duely
Signed reciting the said Order they did promise and agree that
they would not at any time then after erect any other Synagogue or
assemble in any other place or Synagogue under Forfeiture of
500£ one half to her Majesty and the other half to the Poor
and to keep this Agreement they bound themselves by a most Solemn
Oath.

That the Said
Synagogue in Shoemaker Row being very old and out of Repair your
Petitioner in 1716 on paying a Fine of about 300£ obtained a
building lease thereof and of some Tenements thereto adjoyning
from this Honble City in order to rebuild and enlarge the same and
thereby agreed to lay out 400£ in rebuilding the said
Synagogue But your petitioner relying on the former Order of this
Honble Court that the same should be the only Synagogue of the
German Jews in London Your Petitioner lnstead of 400£
expended the Sume of 2000 in rebuilding thereof and to prevent all
Disputes and as much as in Your Petitioner Lay to preserve
Unanimity and Harmony among the Members of the said Synagogue made
a free and voluntary Gift and present thereof to the said
Congregation.

That the said
Abraham Nathan and Marcus Moses as also Mr. Benjamin Isaacks with
an Intent to divide and weaken the said Synagogue have withdrawn
themselves from the same and in Contempt of the said Order of this
Honble Court and in breach of the abovementioned Solemn Agreement
and Oath by them made and taken are now actually erecting and
building a Synagogue in Magpye Alley London which should it go on
would in a short time Manifestly tend to the Impoverishing of the
said Congregation which for some years past hath found it very
difficult to maintain its Poor and render it unable to Support
them for the future and thereby bring a great and inevitable
charge on the Parishes where they live.

That Your
Petitioner and the Members of the said Synagogue are very sensible
of the Happiness and many Blessings they Enjoy under the
Protection of the Laws and your Lordships and Worships mild
Administration of Justice and therefore in regard the said
Building is built so near the Parish Church that the same gives
great Cause of Offence and Will greatly incommode the Inhabitants
of the said Parish in the Exercise of Religion - they therefore
think it their Duty to aqquaint this Honble Court with their
abhorrence and Dislike of an attempt of this Nature and their
Desire that the same may be Discountenanced.

Your Petitioner
therefore humbly prays this Honble Court to take the premisses
into your Consideration and to make Such Order therein as to your
Lordship and Worships in your great Wisdom shall seem just and
reasonable.

And your
Petitioner as in Duty bound Shall Ever pray &c

Moses
Hart

The Humble
Petition of Mr. Moses Hart.

To the Right
Honble the Lord Mayor and the Worshipfull the Court of
Aldermen--

The Humble
Petition of the Minister and Church Wardens and other Inhabitants
of the Parish of St. Katherine Coleman, London--

SHEWETH

That there is now
a building by Marcus Moses a New Jews Synagogue in Magpye Alley in
Fenchurch Street London which Your Petitioners apprehend to be
contrary to Law, and to Sundry Orders of this Honble Court, and
particularly referr to One of the 22d March 1704.

That the said
Synagogue being of a Large Extent adjoyning to the Church Yard,
very near the said Parish Church, will, if Continued to be a great
nuisance to the Parishioners who Inhabit near the said Synagogue
by bringing Numbers of Jews into the Alley wch is a Thorowfare not
Exceeding three foot in width, will in a great measure block up
that passage

Your Petitioners
therefore humbly Prays this Honble Court would please to take our
said Complaint into your Consideration & grant such releife as
your Lordship and Worships shall think Fitt.

And your Petit.
shall ever Pray &c;--

James
Furnese

John Burton and
45 other sig.

Jews not to
proceed on a Synagogue.

Upon reading the
humble petition of the Minister and Churchwardens and other
inhabitants of the parish of St. Katherine Coleman London and also a
petition of Moses Hart on behalf of himself and the rest of the
members of the Synagogue of German Jews Complaining that one Marcus
Moses is now Building a New Synagogue for the Jews in Magpie Ally in
Fanchurch Street which the said petitioners the Minister and
Churchwardens Complain will (if continued) be a Great Nusance and
Disturbance to the parishoners in going to Divine Service and being
Informed that the said Marcus Moses was at the Door he was Ordered to
be Called in and this Court proceeded to Examin the Matter of the
said Complaint in the presence of all the said parties and after a
full hearing of all the said parties in the presence of Each other
This Court Doth Declare That they will not permit nor Suffer the said
Building Complained of to be Converted or turned into a Synagogue for
the Exercise of the said Jewish Religion and doth therefore Order and
Require that no person or persons whatsoever do presume to convert
the said Building into a Synagogue for the Exercise of the said
Jewish Religion as they will Answer the same at their
peril.

Notwithstanding this
categorical prohibition, the work of construction was not
interrupted,4 and the building was dedicated in due course, as we
have seen.

In 1731, Marcus
Moses again returned to India, where he died four years later.
Henceforth the synagogue he had founded was regarded as the private
property of Benjamin Isaac, who referred to it as "my synagogue", in
the same way as the Great Synagogue was called "Moses Hart's Shool":
it was only later on that it became generally known as the Hambro'
Synagogue. Even after it had built itself this new and
beautifully-equipped place of worship, the congregation continued to
be considered by the parent body to be under the ban of
excommunication. On the construction of its new Synagogue in Duke's
Place in 1722, the latter had made a last attempt to heal the breach,
offering to readmit members who had joined the secessionists if they
made their peace within three months. At the same time (as we have
seen) the regulations forbade attendance at any rival conventicle
within a radius of ten miles, debarred these "strangers" from such
religious honours as those of godfather or "unterführer" at
celebrations under the auspices of the congregation, and even forbade
the acceptance of Purim gifts from them. (A proclamation to this
effect was made every year on the Fast of Esther.) Yet this attitude
could not be maintained indefinitely; and at last in 1750, by an
additional regulation or takkanah of the Congregation, the solemn
Herem pronounced in 1706 against "the Synagogue of the late Mordecai
Hamburger" was formally abrogated. Six years later Moses Hart sealed
the reconciliation, when it was found that he had left a small legacy
to the synagogue set up in opposition to his own; and on Hart Lyon's
appointment to the Rabbinate that community not only recognised his
authority, but even contributed to his salary. (Moses Hart's
compliment was cordially reciprocated, and Henry Isaac, the
"proprietor" of the rival establishment, left £100 on his death
in 1773 to the poor of the parish of St. Katherine Coleman "at the
discretion of the Gabas of the Synagogue in Shoemaker's Row", and
£100 to the Synagogue itself.) Henceforth the two communities
collaborated in matter's of common interest, such as the control of
Shechita and the disciplinary regulation of London Jewry, and in 1759
it was agreed that the Hambro' Synagogue should henceforth contribute
one-third to the cost of the maintenance of the Ashkenazi poor in
London.

The
Hambro' Synagogue, Fenchurch Street, 1725-1893

Yet the Great
Synagogue had not yet learned its lesson: that it was impossible to
maintain a monopoly in matters spiritual, especially in a period of
rapidly increasing population. In 1761, the Press announced that "a
company of Jews, natives of Germany, are subscribing a sum of money
for erecting and enclosing a new synagogue near Bricklayers' Hall".
The name of the moving spirit is given elsewhere as Moses Jacobs, of
Little Duke's Place, silversmith, with whom were associated his
brother (?) Lazarus Jacobs, of the same place and trade; Abraham
Judah, of Chiswell Street, colourmaker; Lazarus Levy, of Woolpack
Alley, Houndsditch, jeweller; and Levy Bartharha (i.e. Bacharach,
probably identical with Judah [Loeb] Bacharach, a former
Great Synagogue member), Houndsditch, linendraper. The place was not
in fact near Bricklayers' Hall, but was Bricklayers' Hall itself, in
Leadenhall Street, subsequently Sussex Hall, which the Worshipful
Company of Tylers and Bricklayers had been forced to vacate owing to
straitened circumstances. All told, the original list of members,
drawn up just a fortnight after Pentecost 1761, comprises sixty-five
names. The secessionists had no desire to effect a schism, and the
earliest regulation of the new community, dated in the midsummer of
the same year, specifically recognised Hart Lyon as their
Ab-Beth-Din, and insisted on having his approval for the nomination
of R. Lipman Speyer, of Halberstadt, as their own spiritual leader.
Nevertheless, the authorities of the Great Synagogue were furious
when they heard the news. Moses Jacobs (Moses ben Jacob), the
ringleader, was summarily expelled in February 1761 from membership
of the community and all the privileges attached thereto, because of
the great "profanation of the Divine Name" (Hillul haShem) that he
had caused. Not content with this, on August 16th, after consultation
with their colleagues of the Hambro' Shool, the wardens and elders
(presumably with their Rabbi's concurrence) passed the following
resolution:

Whereas
certain persons unworthy of our countenance and protection have
formed themselves into a society calling themselves a congregation
at Bucklers' Hall; we do hereby strictly charge our Priest, now
and hereafter, that he does not directly or indirectly, or other
in his name or with his knowledge or permission, officiate either
publicly or privately in the service of marriages, burials,
circumcisions, or other acts of priesthood, for any persons
whatever belonging to the said society. And to prevent any persons
from unwarily joining with that Society, we order that this
resolution be read publicly two Sabbaths successively in our
synagogues, that none may plead ignorance thereof. And we further
order that a copy of this resolution be forthwith delivered to the
Mahamad of the Portuguese Synagogue, desiring their concurrence in
supporting and maintaining with us the good order of our
respective communities.

Entrance
to the New Synagogue, Leadenhall Street (from the European
Magazine)

This pronunciamento
was meaningless to the founders of the new congregation, who already
two months earlier, on June 4th, had gone so far as to acquire for
use as their cemetery a piece of ground in what was then called
Ducking Pond Lane (afterwards known as Brady Street). Accordingly,
they went ahead with their arrangements, and in June 1762 the first
stone of their new synagogue was duly laid, large sums of money being
collected from those who participated. In due course the edifice was
completed, and was dedicated with great pomp. This fresh
congregation, at first naïvely called "The Society of
Bricklayers' Hall", ultimately became known as the New Synagogue--the
name which it still retained when in 1837 it removed from Leadenhall
Street to Great St. Helen's, and in 1915 from Great St. Helen's to
Stamford Hill.

Before long, the
Great Synagogue managed to establish a modus vivendi with the new
congregation, and the relations between the two bodies became not
merely smooth, but friendly. With the institution of this third place
of worship, the synagogal organisation of the metropolis, as it was
to exist until the nineteenth century, was completed. The Great
Synagogue and its two formerly dissident daughters, the Hambro' and
the New, represented to London Jewry of a former age the fulcrum of
its spiritual life, and in fact a good deal of the religious
organisation of the community of the metropolis today is based upon
the synagogal trilogy established during Hart Lyon's period of
office.5 As might have been expected from the tone and frequency of
his complaints, which are not likely to have been diminished by
disputes such as this, Hart Lyon's rabbinate was not of long
duration. On the expiry of the initial period of three years, his
appointment was indeed renewed. But this precedent was not
repeated--in part, according to tradition, because of the Rabbi's
objection to the restrictions that were placed upon his authority. At
the beginning of 1763, the Halberstadt community opened up
negotiations with him; they had heard, they said, how neglected the
study of the Torah was in London, and they were happy to be able to
offer him a post which would accord better with his temperament.
Early in 1764 he left London for his new home, where he likewise
remained for six years, afterwards becoming Rabbi at Mannheim and
ultimately at Berlin, where he died in 1800. A number of stories are
told about his departure from London. It is said that one pious
member of the community asked him why he was leaving. "Because this
is the first 'question' (Sheëlah) I have been asked since I
arrived," the Rabbi wittily replied. He is reported to have stated
later on in his career that in London he had money but no Torah, in
Mannheim Torah but no money, and in Berlin neither the one nor the
other. Forty years after he left, however, as will be seen later on,
the connexion of his family with London was to be renewed.

1 They were, of
course. delivered on Sabbath afternoons, not during the morning
service.

2 So the Hebrew
sources: but the writers may have been thinking of the famous Pitt
diamond, subsequently owned by the Duc d'Orléans and subject
of many legends, which Moses had offered for sale in Paris on behalf
of Governor Pitt ten yeas before.

3 The impression
here given is that the Hambro' Synagogue began its independent
existence in 1725, but as we have seen this is not the case: it had
been functioning since 1706/7 (the date of the earliest extant
record) but in a private house, so that the City could not be asked
to intervene.

4 Possibly Marcus
had appealed to the King, whose permission is recorded in somewhat
emphatic language on the foundation-stone (now in the Jewish Museum,
London).

5 It is to be
noticed that the foundation stone of the original New Synagogue, with
the punning Hebrew inscription (with its obvious reference to the
Bricklayers' Company), "The stone which the builders rejected has
become the headstone of the corner" (Psalm cxviii, 22), apparently
gives the chronogram 5417 (or 1756/7) as the year of foundation. This
(which was taken over in the foundation stone of 1837: see the
correspondence in Jewish Chronicle, September 24th, 1837) may
possibly have been the date of the establishment of the congregation
here, the reconstruction having been taken in hand, simultaneously
with the acquisition of the burial-ground, four or five years later,
when the attention of the Great Synagogue authorities was drawn to
the new institution. But there may have been an error in computation,
and the Laws of the New Synagogue, published in 1824, give the year
of foundation as 5522 (1761/2). The basement of the Bricklayers Hall,
below the Synagogue, was used as a wine-cellar. Hence a once-famous
couplet:

Terms and Conditions, Licenses and Restrictions for the use of this website:

This website is
owned by JewishGen and the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain. All
material found herein is owned by or licensed to us. You may view, download, and
print material from this site only for your own personal use. You may not post
material from this site on another website without our consent. You may not
transmit or distribute material from this website to others. You may not use
this website or information found at this site for any commercial purpose.